One Bible for all Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Manfred
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Manfred

Guest
One Bible version for all English-speaking Christians, huh? Not likely.

Protestant fundamentalists only acknowledge and accept the KJV; even the NKJV is viewed by many of them as suspicious. But, since most editions don’t contain the Deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, it is not suitable for Catholics and Orthodox.

Protestant evangelicals are wedded to their beloved NIV; the more enlightened ones will go with the NASB. But neither of these versions has the deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, since evangelicals don’t regard these books as Sacred Scripture. So, neither is suitable for Catholics or the Orthodox.

Mainstream Protestants are likely to use the NRSV which DOES have all the books accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. But its extensive use of inclusive language makes it offensive to, and unsuitable for use by, traditional and conservative Catholics, as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Traditional Catholics generally prefer the Douay-Rheims, which is spurned by more mainstream Catholics because of its “archaic” language and its being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to original-language texts. Most unlikely to be accepted by Protestants or the Orthodox, for the latter reason alone.

Conservative Catholics might go with the RSV-CE, but traditional Catholics may find this too “modern”, too “Protestant”; many mainstream Catholics are probably not even aware of its existence. Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals hate it outright.

Mainstream Catholics like modern-English versions, such as the NAB, the JB, or the NJB; many are not concerned with verbal precision or innovative, non-traditional renderings. Some mainstream Protestants have been known to be favorably disposed towards the JB or NJB.

So, brethren, where does this leave us? The “original-language” texts? Well, then, should we go with the textus receptus (basis of the KJV/NKJV) or more critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

And, please - don’t even think about suggesting the Living or Good News bibles, or any of their latter day revisions, as these remain extreme dynamic-equivalent translations at best.

My opinion? Even for “apologetics” purposes, there is no one bible version agreed upon by all. (Sorry, not even the much-vaunted RSV-CE.) And, for private reading and devotional use, if you have a favorite version, stick with it, for whatever reason(s) you like it; you’re not likely to ever convince someone else that his/her version is inferior to yours.
 
Good overview…thanks.

I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusion that you have.
 
The RSV family is probably the closest one is going to get. But only if you can convince the evangelicals and fundamentalists that the OT wasn’t Jewish corrupted.

You missed the English Standard Version, but that would be easy to fit in there, and everything else was right on.
 
I use the New Jerusalem Bible. I heard Mother Angelica uses the Jerusalem Bible (I have that too but it’s way old and yellowed pages) and loves it. I love it, too, as it’s not too hard to read at all. I used to use the NLT before I knew better. Got is as a gift from my Aunt (ex-Catholic, now protestant) for my bday a few years ago. I do like the NLT but since it’s not accepted by the RC Church, well, it’s sitting on my Christian book shelf looking pretty.
 
In Canada the Church uses the NRSV -CE at Mass and many years before that used the New Jerusalem version. I prefer the old NJ version.

I wonder why the Church changed bibles.
 
imamom said:
I use the New Jerusalem Bible. I heard Mother Angelica uses the Jerusalem Bible (I have that too but it’s way old and yellowed pages) and loves it. I love it, too, as it’s not too hard to read at all. I used to use the NLT before I knew better. Got is as a gift from my Aunt (ex-Catholic, now protestant) for my bday a few years ago. I do like the NLT but since it’s not accepted by the RC Church, well, it’s sitting on my Christian book shelf looking pretty.
Click to expand...
The NLT does have a Catholic version, but I would not recommend it since it is a paraphrase.
 
mmortal03 said:
The RSV family is probably the closest one is going to get. But only if you can convince the evangelicals and fundamentalists that the OT wasn’t Jewish corrupted.

You missed the English Standard Version, but that would be easy to fit in there, and everything else was right on.
Click to expand...
ESV would be close to RSV, but less literal than the RSV. There is no ESV that has the Deuterocanonical books.
 
I have and use the NLT- Catholic reference edition as a tool, not as a primary Bible. I think it is a good help. My primary Bible is the original Jerusalem Bible.
 
This may be slightly off topic, but I’ll share it with y’all because you might get a kick out of it…

When I converted to Protestantism in 1973, I went to Bible studies where most of the participants were using the New American Standard version. I had a “Living Bible” that had been given to me by a friend.

I kept wondering where all the “thees” and “thous” were that I had thought were in the Bible. When somebody finally read from the King James Version, I thought to myself, “Now THAT’S what the Bible is SUPPOSED to sound like!”

I have read primarily the King James Version ever since.

It just dawned on me a few months back that the reason why I was so stuck on the older style of English had nothing to do with any previous exposure to the King James Version (I had been Catholic all my life - where would I have heard the King James Version?), but the fact that the Bible I had heard read from the pulpit in my youth was the Douay-Rheims, which was translated a few years before the KJV.

I now have my own copy of the D-R Bible, and have started rotating the Deuterocanonicals into my systematic reading.
 
thommie said:
This may be slightly off topic, but I’ll share it with y’all because you might get a kick out of it…

When I converted to Protestantism in 1973, I went to Bible studies where most of the participants were using the New American Standard version. I had a “Living Bible” that had been given to me by a friend.

I kept wondering where all the “thees” and “thous” were that I had thought were in the Bible. When somebody finally read from the King James Version, I thought to myself, “Now THAT’S what the Bible is SUPPOSED to sound like!”

I have read primarily the King James Version ever since.

It just dawned on me a few months back that the reason why I was so stuck on the older style of English had nothing to do with any previous exposure to the King James Version (I had been Catholic all my life - where would I have heard the King James Version?), but the fact that the Bible I had heard read from the pulpit in my youth was the Douay-Rheims, which was translated a few years before the KJV.

I now have my own copy of the D-R Bible, and have started rotating the Deuterocanonicals into my systematic reading.
Click to expand...
If you are curious about comparing the D-R and the KJV, e-Sword has both of them (plus many other translations) available for free. e-Sword has the KJV w/Apocrypha (a.k.a. Deuterocanonicals). You can click on “compare” once you look up a particular verse and see how it is translated in several different Bible versions.
 
Manfred said:
One Bible version for all English-speaking Christians, huh? Not likely.

Protestant fundamentalists only acknowledge and accept the KJV; even the NKJV is viewed by many of them as suspicious. But, since most editions don’t contain the Deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, it is not suitable for Catholics and Orthodox.

Protestant evangelicals are wedded to their beloved NIV; the more enlightened ones will go with the NASB. But neither of these versions has the deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, since evangelicals don’t regard these books as Sacred Scripture. So, neither is suitable for Catholics or the Orthodox.

Mainstream Protestants are likely to use the NRSV which DOES have all the books accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. But its extensive use of inclusive language makes it offensive to, and unsuitable for use by, traditional and conservative Catholics, as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Traditional Catholics generally prefer the Douay-Rheims, which is spurned by more mainstream Catholics because of its “archaic” language and its being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to original-language texts. Most unlikely to be accepted by Protestants or the Orthodox, for the latter reason alone.

Conservative Catholics might go with the RSV-CE, but traditional Catholics may find this too “modern”, too “Protestant”; many mainstream Catholics are probably not even aware of its existence. Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals hate it outright.

Mainstream Catholics like modern-English versions, such as the NAB, the JB, or the NJB; many are not concerned with verbal precision or innovative, non-traditional renderings. Some mainstream Protestants have been known to be favorably disposed towards the JB or NJB.

So, brethren, where does this leave us? The “original-language” texts? Well, then, should we go with the textus receptus (basis of the KJV/NKJV) or more critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

And, please - don’t even think about suggesting the Living or Good News bibles, or any of their latter day revisions, as these remain extreme dynamic-equivalent translations at best.

My opinion? Even for “apologetics” purposes, there is no one bible version agreed upon by all. (Sorry, not even the much-vaunted RSV-CE.) And, for private reading and devotional use, if you have a favorite version, stick with it, for whatever reason(s) you like it; you’re not likely to ever convince someone else that his/her version is inferior to yours.
Click to expand...

There has been a common Bible for over 30 years 🙂 - since the appearance of the 1973 RSV Common Bible: which was greeted warmly by Catholics, Protestants & Orthodox.​

It includes all the books recognised as canonical by all three groups.

Different uses of the Bible are not the same thing as different versions of it - for example
  • some versions are better for liturgical use than others
  • some are better as versions for people whose second language is English
  • some are better than others for study
    The problem is, that it is most unlikely, now, that one version is going to satisfy all needs, even within a single Church:
  • for students
  • for liturgical use
  • for learners of English
  • aesthetically
    All translation has to be dynamically equivalent at some points - otherwise, one is going to produce literalistic gobblydegook at worst, & at best, something which fails to catch the subtleties of the text. Besides, many words are untranslatable: logos has dozens of meanings, & even if it had only a handful, the translator would still have to decide whether the author had dabar in mind - which occurs in the OT in many different connections - or whether the theology of the book was Hellenistic: or both.
This is why there is that Italian proverb, “The translator is a betrayer” - words often have ideas in them which are impossible to translate, unless one is prepared to paraphrase. And to do that, can often make one’s author sound unbearably stodgy & dull (How many readers of the more archaic translations understand what St. Paul is driving at ?). Which would be a great disservice to an author such as the fourth evangelist. Translation is often simply not possible. And this is all quite separate from the question of what text is translated. ##
 
If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church could one make the argument that there really is not an authoratative genuine bible that is not endorsed by that same Catholic Church?

I’d like to hear the argument why–if not for all christians–then for Latin Rite Catholics:

why would a perfect English translation of the Nova Vulgata not be good enough?

If such a translation was sent to the Vatican for approval–why would the Vatican say it was not good enough?
 
Jerry-Jet said:
If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church could one make the argument that there really is not an authoratative genuine bible that is not endorsed by that same Catholic Church?

I’d like to hear the argument why–if not for all christians–then for Latin Rite Catholics:

why would a perfect English translation of the Nova Vulgata not be good enough?

If such a translation was sent to the Vatican for approval–why would the Vatican say it was not good enough?
Click to expand...
The Vatican would probably say it is not good enough because they want an English translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not from the Latin. They are interested in translations from the original languages, not translations of translations.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
If there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church could one make the argument that there really is not an authoratative genuine bible that is not endorsed by that same Catholic Church?

I’d like to hear the argument why–if not for all christians–then for Latin Rite Catholics:

why would a perfect English translation of the Nova Vulgata not be good enough?

If such a translation was sent to the Vatican for approval–why would the Vatican say it was not good enough?
Click to expand...
Languages evolve. It would probably do well in today’s English, though, which is all that really matters at the moment.

But, as lak611 said, it has to be from the original languages.

What should be done, and what LA seems to ask for, is a translation into English from the best reconstruction of the original languages that we have, that matches the NV in questionable areas, and that emulates the NV’s style, all with modern non-inclusive English. That would be “One Bible for all English-speaking Catholics”.
 
imamom said:
I use the New Jerusalem Bible. I heard Mother Angelica uses the Jerusalem Bible (I have that too but it’s way old and yellowed pages) and loves it. I love it, too, as it’s not too hard to read at all. I used to use the NLT before I knew better. Got is as a gift from my Aunt (ex-Catholic, now protestant) for my bday a few years ago. I do like the NLT but since it’s not accepted by the RC Church, well, it’s sitting on my Christian book shelf looking pretty.
Click to expand...
There is in fact now a Catholic version of the NLT, although, it should not be anyone’s “first-string” bible since it is a paraphrase.
 
Manfred said:
One Bible version for all English-speaking Christians, huh? Not likely.

Protestant fundamentalists only acknowledge and accept the KJV; even the NKJV is viewed by many of them as suspicious. But, since most editions don’t contain the Deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, it is not suitable for Catholics and Orthodox.

Protestant evangelicals are wedded to their beloved NIV; the more enlightened ones will go with the NASB. But neither of these versions has the deuterocanonicals or the Apocrypha, since evangelicals don’t regard these books as Sacred Scripture. So, neither is suitable for Catholics or the Orthodox.

Mainstream Protestants are likely to use the NRSV which DOES have all the books accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. But its extensive use of inclusive language makes it offensive to, and unsuitable for use by, traditional and conservative Catholics, as well as Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals.

Traditional Catholics generally prefer the Douay-Rheims, which is spurned by more mainstream Catholics because of its “archaic” language and its being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, as opposed to original-language texts. Most unlikely to be accepted by Protestants or the Orthodox, for the latter reason alone.

Conservative Catholics might go with the RSV-CE, but traditional Catholics may find this too “modern”, too “Protestant”; many mainstream Catholics are probably not even aware of its existence. Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals hate it outright.

Mainstream Catholics like modern-English versions, such as the NAB, the JB, or the NJB; many are not concerned with verbal precision or innovative, non-traditional renderings. Some mainstream Protestants have been known to be favorably disposed towards the JB or NJB.

So, brethren, where does this leave us? The “original-language” texts? Well, then, should we go with the textus receptus (basis of the KJV/NKJV) or more critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?

And, please - don’t even think about suggesting the Living or Good News bibles, or any of their latter day revisions, as these remain extreme dynamic-equivalent translations at best.

My opinion? Even for “apologetics” purposes, there is no one bible version agreed upon by all. (Sorry, not even the much-vaunted RSV-CE.) And, for private reading and devotional use, if you have a favorite version, stick with it, for whatever reason(s) you like it; you’re not likely to ever convince someone else that his/her version is inferior to yours.
Click to expand...
One promising translation that could be very universal is the English Standard Version (ESV). It was produced by conservative Protestants, but it is simply a light revision of the RSV (only a 6% text change). It will be coming out with an Apocrypha, I found out recently. It will still not be perfect for we Catholics, since it does not use the preferred Catholic rendering in a couple of key passages, but it is about a close as we are going to get.

In the meantime, I recommend the Catholic RSV or the Confraternity Bible.
 
lanceg said:
One promising translation that could be very universal is the English Standard Version (ESV). It was produced by conservative Protestants, but it is simply a light revision of the RSV (only a 6% text change). It will be coming out with an Apocrypha, I found out recently. It will still not be perfect for we Catholics, since it does not use the preferred Catholic rendering in a couple of key passages, but it is about a close as we are going to get.

In the meantime, I recommend the Catholic RSV or the Confraternity Bible.
Click to expand...
Manfred, I, and others have discussed this before. I think the prevailing opinion was that if we are going to have to edit the ESV to remove the Protestantisms that were introduced there, we might as well just edit the RSV and remove the Protestantisms that were introduced THERE.

I have no problem with analyzing the ESV and looking at what they did for any non-biased ideas for updating the RSV, but I think we should start with the RSV itself. (actually, we should start with the unofficial RSV 1971 / RSV:CE 1965 hybrid 🙂 )
 
What really should be done is a new Catholic bible from Catholic biblical scholars who are not terrified by the USCCB and do not worship at the altar of the NAB.

Are there any Catholic biblical scholars like that in the US?

Is it illegal for Catholic biblical scholars other than the ones who came up with the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible to go “Back to the original languages”?

It really is sad to think that the only way English speaking Catholics can get back to the original languages outside the NAB/Jerusalem Bible is by way of Protestant translations!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Is it illegal for Catholic biblical scholars other than the ones who came up with the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible to go “Back to the original languages”?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is anything illegal about it, but as we have discussed before, it might be difficult to get approved. If it is a quality translation, one might be able to get a censor and then a bishop to take a look at it, but I don’t know what the constraints are. It isn’t like censors and bishops are just sitting around waiting to be sent anyone’s document to approve. It would need a good, known publisher, I would guess, to have it submitted. It is a long process to produce a translation. I think the translators would need some credibility behind them. Also, since it is a translation of the Bible, from what I understand there are special restrictions that they take into account.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top